Jharkhand High Court

Adarsh Laksh @ Adarsh Lakshya @ Bhaiya Ji vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 October, 2025

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                                                     (2025:JHHC:32548)




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                           Cr.M.P. No. 3051 of 2025


            Adarsh Laksh @ Adarsh Lakshya @ Bhaiya Ji, aged about 28 years, son
            of Hemant Kumar Rai, resident of B.N. Jha Path, Pokhnatilha, P.O.-B.
            Deoghar, P.S. & Dist.-Deoghar (Jharkhand)
                                                       ....              Petitioner
                                           Versus

            The State of Jharkhand
                                                       ....                 Opp. Party


                                           PRESENT

                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

                                                .....

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate : Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Subodh Kr. Dubey, Addl. P.P. .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire

criminal prosecution in connection with the FIR of Kunda P.S.

Case No. 58 of 2025 including the charge sheet no. 82 of 2025

dated 08.06.2025 on the ground that the same is the second FIR in

respect of selfsame occurrence, in respect of which Kunda P.S.

Case No. 57 of 2025 was registered prior to this FIR.

3. The allegation against the petitioner of Kunda P.S. Case No. 58

of 2025 is that the petitioner was member of unlawful assembly

(2025:JHHC:32548)

and in prosecution of common object of the assembly blocked the

National Highway by keeping a dead body of a lady on a

stretcher alleging that the lady sustained injury by the acts of the

police and when the informant and the police officers of Kunda

P.S. Case No. 58 of 2025 reached the place of occurrence, the

petitioner being member of an unlawful assembly assaulted the

police personnel, causing injuries to them, attempted to murder

them by beating them with lathi and danda, used criminal force to

deter the public servant-police officer from discharging their duty

and outraged the modesty of the informant.

4. On the basis of the written report submitted by Mamta Devi-

Hawaldar of Shakti Mobile-1, Deoghar, Kunda P.S. Case No. 58 of

2025 has been registered.

5. It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

petitioner that for the selfsame occurrence, Kunda P.S. Case No.

57 of 2025 has also been registered albeit on the basis of the

written report submitted by Assistant Sub-Inspector-Om Prakash

of Kunda police station. Relying upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of T.T. Antony vs.

State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 181, paragraph

nos. 25 and 27 of which reads as under:-

"25. Where the police transgresses its statutory power of investigation the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and this Court in an appropriate case can interdict the investigation to prevent abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable

(2025:JHHC:32548)

offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied)

It is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

petitioner that the FIR of Kunda P.S. Case No. 58 of 2025 being the

second FIR in respect of selfsame occurrence, in respect of which

Kunda P.S. Case No. 57 of 2025 has been registered; hence, the FIR

of Kunda P.S. Case No. 58 of 2025 is hit by the provisions of

Section 181 of B.N.S.S. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as

prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand

vehemently opposes the prayer made by the petitioner in this

criminal miscellaneous petition and submits that Kunda P.S. Case

No. 58 of 2025 has been registered for an occurrence which took

place half an hour before the occurrence in respect of which

Kunda P.S. Case No. 57 of 2025 has been registered. Hence, it is

(2025:JHHC:32548)

submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without

any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going

through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here

that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated in the case

of Tarak Das Mukherjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

in Criminal Appeal No. 1400 of 2022 dated 23.08.2022, paragraph

no. 12 of which reads and under:-

"12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court."

(Emphasis supplied)

that if multiple First Information Reports by the same person

against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of

the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused

getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same

alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is

nothing but abuse of the process of law.

8. In the case of Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash and Others reported

in (2004) 13 SCC 292, paragraph no. 17 of which reads and under

"17. It is clear from the words emphasised hereinabove in the above quotation, this Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] has not excluded the registration of a complaint in the nature of a counter-case from the purview of the

(2025:JHHC:32548)

Code. In our opinion, this Court in that case only held that any further complaint by the same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the same accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint, hence will be prohibited under Section 162 of the Code. This prohibition noticed by this Court, in our opinion, does not apply to counter-complaint by the accused in the first complaint or on his behalf alleging a different version of the said incident." (Emphasis supplied)

wherein, it was reiterated that any further complaint by the

same complainant or others against the same accused, subsequent

to the registration of a case, is prohibited under the Code of

Criminal Procedure because an investigation in this regard would

have already started and further complaint against the same

accused will amount to an improvement on the facts mentioned in

the original complaint, hence the same will be prohibited under

Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which corresponds

to Section 181 of B.N.S.S.